4 ms·

I'm really surprised that having below replacement rate fertility for the last ~50 years earns the developed world no good will on this front, and instead stati

by deogeo 8y ago

I'm really surprised that having below replacement rate fertility for the last ~50 years earns the developed world no good will on this front, and instead statistics are used that completely disregard population size, especially since it's so heavily advocated: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why-we-should-have-fewer-children-save-the-planet-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why-we... https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/oct/07/should-we-be-having-fewer-children-for-the-sake-of-the-planet https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2017/oct/07/should-we... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-children.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-ch... https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans-have-fewer-babies-to-save-the-environment.html https://slate.com/technology/2007/09/should-americans-have-f...

kbutler 8y ago
1) per capita statistics explicitly ignore fertility rate effects 2) even though the US fertility rate has been below replacement rate since the early 1970s (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA), population has continued to grow because of immigration. Per capita effects of immigrants fade as their lifestyles become more like those of the existing population.
- deogeo 8y ago
  #1 is my point, and as for #2, there aren't many newspapers calling for reduced immigration to reduce CO2 emissions, are there? Have fewer children, but don't dare consider reducing immigration.
- duality 8y ago
  I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource intense, wouldn't that be a natural stance to take?
  - arrrg 8y ago
    If all humans were killed climate change would also be a solved problem. Cures that are worse than the disease do exist and are unacceptable. One central tenet also among environmental advocacy groups is in general that climate change advocacy cannot be used as a tool for oppression with a “we got what we want, fuck everyone else” attitude.
    - deogeo 8y ago
      Is not immigrating to the US really a fate so horrible you'd compare it to all humans being killed?
      - arrrg 8y ago
        Obviously not. I picked the extreme, absurd and obvious to everyone example to make the principle behind the thinking clear. It’s for illustrative purposes only.
    - ratboy666 8y ago
      Not remotely true -- the climate would still change. The question is "Is climate change a problem?". Personally, I don't like the idea that the expression of some latent genes may produce this monster: https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was_as_big_as_trex.html https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was... Which is only possibly if the temperature goes up considerably. Which means that my answer is: "Yes, some climate change is a problem". From the perspective of the giant snakes, the answer is the same: yes, climate cooling is a problem. Go figure, the same answer on any change. On the contrary, climate staying the same? Trees are, in general, happier if there is more CO2. There are lots of trees -- if they had a "vote", I'm pretty sure they want more CO2. So, in favour of warming. All of this (our needs, snake needs, tree needs, etc) makes for a very interesting and complex problem. What I don't understand is "climate change advocacy". Given that the climate changes, is that advocacy for more change? Less change? And how is this a "tool for oppression"? I live in Canada -- we have a carbon tax, which is oppressive. Can you clarify a bit? Thanks in advance FredW
  - 8y ago

by deogeo 8y ago

kbutler 8y ago

1) per capita statistics explicitly ignore fertility rate effects 2) even though the US fertility rate has been below replacement rate since the early 1970s (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA), population has continued to grow because of immigration. Per capita effects of immigrants fade as their lifestyles become more like those of the existing population.

deogeo 8y ago
#1 is my point, and as for #2, there aren't many newspapers calling for reduced immigration to reduce CO2 emissions, are there? Have fewer children, but don't dare consider reducing immigration.
duality 8y ago
I've wondered why environmental advocacy groups are not more vocal in support of curtailing immigration into the US. If the American lifestyle is more resource intense, wouldn't that be a natural stance to take?
- arrrg 8y ago
  If all humans were killed climate change would also be a solved problem. Cures that are worse than the disease do exist and are unacceptable. One central tenet also among environmental advocacy groups is in general that climate change advocacy cannot be used as a tool for oppression with a “we got what we want, fuck everyone else” attitude.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Is not immigrating to the US really a fate so horrible you'd compare it to all humans being killed?
    - arrrg 8y ago
      Obviously not. I picked the extreme, absurd and obvious to everyone example to make the principle behind the thinking clear. It’s for illustrative purposes only.
  - ratboy666 8y ago
    Not remotely true -- the climate would still change. The question is "Is climate change a problem?". Personally, I don't like the idea that the expression of some latent genes may produce this monster: https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was_as_big_as_trex.html https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was... Which is only possibly if the temperature goes up considerably. Which means that my answer is: "Yes, some climate change is a problem". From the perspective of the giant snakes, the answer is the same: yes, climate cooling is a problem. Go figure, the same answer on any change. On the contrary, climate staying the same? Trees are, in general, happier if there is more CO2. There are lots of trees -- if they had a "vote", I'm pretty sure they want more CO2. So, in favour of warming. All of this (our needs, snake needs, tree needs, etc) makes for a very interesting and complex problem. What I don't understand is "climate change advocacy". Given that the climate changes, is that advocacy for more change? Less change? And how is this a "tool for oppression"? I live in Canada -- we have a carbon tax, which is oppressive. Can you clarify a bit? Thanks in advance FredW
- 8y ago